The article reads, "Atheism is the denial of existence of God." However, this is inadequate for two reasons. First, even if we maintain the word 'denial', atheism is the denial of existence of ''all'' gods, not just the Judeo-Christian one, ''and'' all supernatural events. Second, a person can be an atheist if they merely lack belief in any god; this is called weak atheism and is very similar to agnosticism, but does not actively deny the existence of any deities or the supernatural. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) Thus, I suggest a revision of the definition to: "Atheism is the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of any god or the supernatural." If I receive no response in 3 days, I shall change it. [[User:GVolkov|GVolkov]] 10:26, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

The article reads, "Atheism is the denial of existence of God." However, this is inadequate for two reasons. First, even if we maintain the word 'denial', atheism is the denial of existence of ''all'' gods, not just the Judeo-Christian one, ''and'' all supernatural events. Second, a person can be an atheist if they merely lack belief in any god; this is called weak atheism and is very similar to agnosticism, but does not actively deny the existence of any deities or the supernatural. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) Thus, I suggest a revision of the definition to: "Atheism is the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of any god or the supernatural." If I receive no response in 3 days, I shall change it. [[User:GVolkov|GVolkov]] 10:26, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

+

:That's the exact same thing I said above. By this definition, Hindus, Wiccans, and just plain non-Christian theists are atheists. But the people here are pretty insistent that atheism is the assertion that no gods exist, so you won't get very far on that discussion unfortunately. But yes, you are correct that the definition stated on the page is flawed. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 11:46, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism

Reddit atheism

/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored?

There have been atheist right-wingers like Ayn Rand who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--TheQuestioner 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.

Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. Karajou 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E

Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. RaymondZ 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.williagz 9:29, 12 February 2013

I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. Karajou 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.williagz 16:04, 12 February 2013

Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. Karajou 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.williagz 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --MrSnowman 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[1] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[2]

But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.williagz 19:57, 27 December 2012

Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[3] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[4]

By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[5]RobTurkel 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. williagz 16:10, 12 February 2013

A problem with the definition of atheism stated

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? KatieKomori 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. Conservative 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? KatieKomori 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. Onestone 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: Christian apologetics. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: Atheism and cowardice. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. Conservative 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?KatieKomori 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect user:Conservative. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

North Korea and Laos

Suggested fixes

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is inversely proportional to eduction, not indirectly.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

Autism

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See autism and atheismWilcoxD 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. GregG 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?

Does an atheist conservative have any place here?

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. Karajou 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. KatieKomori 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). brenden 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: Bulverism by C.S. Lewis and Evidence for Christianity. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[6] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[7]Conservative 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.

Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. KatieKomori 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --DamianJohn 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, freedom from heavy tax burden, right to bear arms, and freedom of religion don't seem to be exclusive to Christianity, why do you have to be a Christian to support any of that? You don't need to be a Christian to recognize that these principles are the cornerstone of the human condition, and promote the greatest success possible for a country. KatieKomori 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?

It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the oxymoron page is an oxymoron itself.--Patmac 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --DamianJohn 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah... no. Osama bin Laden was a mixed bag of ideologies, and any attempt to pile him neatly into one camp or another will fail. Anyway, it would appear that the short answer to Katie's question would be no. --DonnyC 01:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

We're all a mixed bag if we're going to be perfectly honest... I'd be willing to bet literally anything I own, assuming participant was somehow guaranteed to answer honestly, that in a double blind study no two editors on this site would give exactly the same answers to a given test of political/moral/social views and give the same "weight" to each topic's relative importance. No matter how conservative one claims to be, (or conversely, how liberal they are accused of being) everyone views the world slightly differently. There should be a place here for everyone who considers themselves conservative. Who are we to judge what is in another's heart? Fnarrow 01:39, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

KatieKomori, you wrote: "With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know." That is because your so-called conservative friends are faux conservatives! See: Social conservatism. Second, you still haven't shown me that atheism is more traditional than theism. Atheists have always been a minority in the world - especially before the 1700s (see: Paul-Henri Thiry). And now atheists are shrinking as a percentage of the world's population. See: Decline of atheism. The religion of atheism is not traditional/conservative.

Technically, atheism is more traditional because belief in gods has only existed for as long as the human species, probably even less. But that doesn't matter, even if atheism isn't traditional, my religious/spiritual views don't play a part in my political views. I am a libertarian, but I don't think that excludes me from being a conservative as well. I don't care about social conservatism because to be honest, it seems pretty worthless and pointless to me. What's actually important is the economic future of America, which is what's actually under attack right now. Maybe the liberals are succeeding because we're focusing on silly things like pornography and homosexuality...when there's REAL problems that need to be solved... KatieKomori 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Conserative, are you a member of a family unit ? Do you have a 'long haired creationist wife' and some creationist children ? Dvergne 23:13, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Look Conservative, if you want an atheism/theism debate and you want me to answer those questions so badly, please take it to my talk page. Or email me, or start a new discussion, or whatever. I'd be happy to provide responses to those "questions". This has gotten way off topic from my original question but I'll take the fact that I haven't been banned as an answer. KatieKomori 15:48, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder seems to be a disorder invented by youself Big C. Do you have any clinical evidence for this disorder? I read it as a satirical piece, which is well done but hardly something to link to as proof. And I think it is rather cruel and nasty of you to diagnose someone with a mental disorder, even if it is pseudo. Katy has shown no sign of a disorder, she has only dis-agreed with you. --Patmac 17:17, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

Definition of Atheism

The article reads, "Atheism is the denial of existence of God." However, this is inadequate for two reasons. First, even if we maintain the word 'denial', atheism is the denial of existence of all gods, not just the Judeo-Christian one, and all supernatural events. Second, a person can be an atheist if they merely lack belief in any god; this is called weak atheism and is very similar to agnosticism, but does not actively deny the existence of any deities or the supernatural. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) Thus, I suggest a revision of the definition to: "Atheism is the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of any god or the supernatural." If I receive no response in 3 days, I shall change it. GVolkov 10:26, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

That's the exact same thing I said above. By this definition, Hindus, Wiccans, and just plain non-Christian theists are atheists. But the people here are pretty insistent that atheism is the assertion that no gods exist, so you won't get very far on that discussion unfortunately. But yes, you are correct that the definition stated on the page is flawed. KatieKomori 11:46, 11 May 2013 (EDT)